Piper Responds to Instone-Brewer
20 comments | Permalink
John Piper writes on Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce. Conclusion:
My experience with the issue of divorce (and with the New Perspective on Paul) is that people who talk this way do not generally see the meaning of the New Testament as clearly as those who focus their attention not in the extra-biblical literature but in the New Testament texts themselves. For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself.In sum, what I am pleading for here is that Jesus’ standards for marriage were higher than the rabbinic schools. He is radical, not accommodating. The world we live in needs to see a church that is so satisfied in Christ that its marriages are not abandoned for something as amorphous as “emotional neglect.” The deepest meaning of marriage is to display the covenant-keeping faithfulness of Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:25). And Christ will never divorce his wife and take another.
posted by JT at Thursday, October 18, 2007
20 Comments:
Focusing on the last three paragraphs of Piper's article, I think the first two are very important and very well-said. As to the rest, is it possible that Piper himself is coming pretty close to doing what he accuses Instone-Brewer of, but from or in the opposite direction?
And while it is certainly fair to criticize an article qua article, I'll reserve my whole judgment of I-B's position per se until I read his fuller case.
RE the 'any cause' part of Instone-Brewer's argument...
Surely Piper can't be saying that interpreting Scripture in the light of the language/culture of its day is bad?
What do we do with the business about 'sons of God' and 'sons of the devil'? We know that's not to be interpreted on the basis of the plain meaning of the text, but in the context of what it was to be a son in first century middle-eastern culture. Surely that's all Instone-Brewer is doing when it comes to using Rabbinic literature to look at 'any cause'.
The NPP reference is surely going a bit far?! Is there really any comparison between that and what IB is doing?
Daniel (maybe we can make this an all-Dan meta):
At first I raised an eyebrow at this. It does smack a bit of GBA. However, here's what I think is Piper's valid point: if we have any doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture at all, how likely is it that the entire Christian church would completely misunderstand something until a scholar/specialist turns up after 2000 years of deluded wandering to tell us that the text means the opposite of what it says?
Having said that, I still say what I said.
(c:
Dan
If the perspicuity is Piper's major argument, here, then it's problematic for him, to say the least. The most simple reading of the NT leads most people to allow divorce and remarriage in the case of Abandonment and Adultery.
Piper, on the other hand, makes a (somewhat difficult to understand, much less develop through a simple reading of the text) argument against divorce and remarriage in all circumstances, doesn't he?
I think that Piper (peace be upon him... I love me some Piper) is arguing for perspicuity out of convenience to his argument, here. The simplest (and therefore most accessible to the layperson) of readings leads to a different conclusion than what he advocates.
Still, though, I am sympathetic to Piper's position and am glad that he contends for a position on the opposite end of the spectrum from most evangelical thinking.
It would be good to first read Piper's "Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper" for anyone who wants to have a better idea of where John is coming from. His case is compelling.
Unless he makes the argument better than every other I've read, I'd rate it the among the least likely positions.
I think the issue DJP and Daniel are focusing on is a crucial one, related to the clarity/perpiscuity and sufficiency of the divine revelation as we now have it in the canonical Scriptures. To give another example: should we really think that the church could not hear the voice of the Spirit in the Scriptures, to continue to guide us in the truth we need for salvation until E.P. Sanders and company arrived with their analysis of Second Temple Judaism?
In asking that, I dont' mean to foster an anti-scholarship perspective. Still, when Paul writes in Colossians 2 about the prospect of the Colossian believers possessing "the full riches of complete understanding" I get the sense that the diligent student of inscripturated revelation has every reason to continue to believe that Spirit-illuminated study will yield "everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him..." (2 Pet.1:3).
Dans and all,
I have read Piper's other material.
I was struck by the way in which Piper dismisses such an argument from [historical] context with something of a put-down, essentially accusing Instone-Brewer of disregarding Scripture. Granted this happens, it's not a good place to start one's argument, particularly if it means calling into question the historical-critical endeavor. Ironically, Piper himself thinks he knows/understands the historical context and can surmise what the audience would or would not have heard in a given passage:
"I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16. Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts..."
Similarly, in his earlier article, Piper himself imports language (porneia) from a polemically-charged context in John in order to connect Matthew 19 with Matthew 1, and thus limit the exception quite narrowly to sexual infidelity during engagement. I have no problem with this, as long as potential weaknesses are acknowledged (and there are several with relying on the aspersion in John), and provided someone using this method doesn't disallow similar methodology from others!
Moreover, in his use of John and Matthew 1 to explain porneia, Piper seems to assume that engagement and marriage in the first century are analogous to engagement/marriage in more recent cultures, such that sex during engagement would not have been regarded as adultery per se among Jews in Jesus' era. But that is not at all the case: sex with someone other than the engaged partner was regarded as adulterous behavior in Jewish circles in the first century, pure and simple (see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 367 and many other texts, probably including those written by I-B). An engaged woman had to be divorced; could be killed for adultery; could legally become a widow; can be called someone's "wife"; etc. If one clamors for evidence from a "biblical" context, I offer Tamar, who was to be killed because she came down pregnant while officially engaged to Judah's youngest son. She had committed adultery (porneia in LXX), it was assumed.
Piper thus offers an anachronistic reading of the charge of "mere" fornication in John. As Piper admits, "porneia" is more flexible than he allows. There were words for betrothal which would have made Piper's supposed limited exception crystal clear--and Matthew obviously knew them (cf. Matt 1, mnesteutheimes).
Piper may be correct--at a minimum his is a case to be prayerfully considered--but how can he critique the method if he himself is employing it as his starting point? His comments on I-B sound far too polemical. And to import the NPP is tacky at best.
I'm so glad you guys use words like "perspicuity" and "thus" in your comments. It just really validates your arguments in an astounding manner. Maybe there will be more to say on this matter in a fortnight, what with all this balleyhoo.
JB Hood said:
Piper may be correct—at a minimum his is a case to be prayerfully considered—but how can he critique the method if he himself is employing it as his starting point? His comments on I-B sound far too polemical. And to import the NPP is tacky at best.
You are correct here, this concern deserves to be addressed further. Piper's case may be correct indeed. BUT, was it necessary to prove it in such a polemically charged way? For those that don't know anything about David, (and by extension Tyndale House), they may easily get the impression that he is to be boxed in with the rest of the NPP proponents, and seeks to trump the Scriptures with extra-biblical works. This cannot be further from the truth.
I suspect that emotions were running high when Pastor John wrote the post, especially in light of the book and recent interviews on NPP. Also, his passion for the subject of marriage, and how the article may be interpreted by others. However, I disagree with the tone of the argument, and feel it is completely unnecessary.
Mike Brown — really well-said, though I'm less sympathetic than you (I guess) for Piper's position. Okay, I've deleted my original second sentence, and will just say that I think his position can create about as much damage as he credits to I-B's position. Just of another kind.
Though I'm sure neither man intends to do any damage to anything.
I don't think Piper's take on the exception clause is too shaky. Although betrothal had a different meaning than the western engagements of today, it would be presumed that the betrothed should not consummate anything until after the marriage. If one of the betrothed had been found to be sexually unfaithful and there had been no consummation, then it would be just to divorce (as in the case of Mary and Joseph where her pregnancy would be presumed to have been caused by an act of infidelity) and the one who had not been unfaithful would certainly be free to marry another.
It's plenty shaky.
In porneia, we're not dealing with a word infrequently used and of dubious or specially technical significance. It simply means the breaking of God's laws in the arena of sexuality. Given that marriage is a bilateral, conditional covenant, and that Scripture both in Old and New gives a range of conditions under which the covenant can be broken ("let man not separate" does not equal "man is unable to separate"), it seems most honoring to God to respect His word as given, rather than impose an agenda on it in an effort, however well-intentioned, to be more rigorous (that's a nice word) than He.
Jim,
Dan is correct.
And if one of my parishoners sees her husband on "To Catch a Predator," I'm going to allow the use of that definition of porneia; I could not insist on Piper's narrow, supra-biblical definition--however much I might hold out hope for healing and reconciliation.
Agreed, J.B., and well-put. I'll further say that we should hold out, encourage, suggest — but not impose. God gives that option to the wronged person. It isn't our place to withhold it, in our unflagging efforts to "help" Him by "improving "on His Word.
DJP said:
"In porneia, we're not dealing with a word infrequently used and of dubious or specially technical significance. It simply means the breaking of God's laws in the arena of sexuality."
Does this mean that a woman is justified in divorcing her husband if her husband confesses of lusting after another woman or looking at porn?
If not, how do we reconcile that Jesus taught this to be equaled to adultery, that being a part of "God's laws in the arena of sexuality?"
I am not criticizing you. I actually do not have my mind made up in this matter and it has come up in my church recently.
I will stay anonymous for that reason...
Sigh.
Well, I don't really want to answer. I hate this topic. I hate divorce. Not divorced people, but divorce. It is invariably because of sin, and it invariably means broken people and dreams, and often (and worse), broken children.
While inarguably all sin is sin, and all sin is abominable, nonetheless and obviously there is a distinction in what sins are humanly litigable, what sins have legal consequences and admit of legal remedies or sanctions. Otherwise, every one of us would be executed for murder before we left our teens, and no marriage would last long. There is a difference, in the sense described above, between sins confronted and battled in the arena of the mind alone, and sins which (as Owen puts it) the will embraces and the person acts on.
In God's eyes, there may be no grays. In our judgment, there are shadings that are difficult. I rather suspect that many are attracted to positions like Piper's precisely because it admits of no grays. It's simple. No divorce. Period. It makes for (as another commenter said) "pastoral" difficulties, but we need not suffer too greatly for the people involved. You congratulate yourself on having a "high" view of marriage, and move on. It's a simple demarcation.
In the other extreme, there are few or no lines or borders. Which makes for fewer "pastoral" (or personal) difficulties in one sense, but which is clearly unfaithful to the text.
That leaves us with what the Bible says: porneia and abandonment. There are clear cases of each. Adultery, the former; "I'm through with you," slam, gone for good, the latter. Other cases will call for agonizing and miserable exercises of wisdom and grace, and pastoral care.
And here I'll have to risk disappointing you by saying that I will not comment on your scenario. If that's a situation in your church, your church leadership must provide Biblical guidance, and it may take one wiser than Solomon.
Many will hate that this position doesn't answer all scenarios as simply as Piper's does; others will like it for reasons I do not share. I'm just there because I believe the Bible is there, and because I believe God, that's where I want to be. Whether I "like" it or not isn't the issue.
Let me hasten to append this: I do not mean to imply, and I do not believe, that everyone (including John Piper) holds that position for the reason I mentioned. I've no doubt that there are a host of motivations, including many that are perfectly good and God-honoring.
Please forgive me for not repeating that disclaimer (which I'd already said earlier) in the previous post.
OK, Anonymous dude. You (nicely) badgered me for an answer, then disappear? Not cool. Email, or something.
It's also helpful to note that for Piper's position on Matt 5 & 19 to stand, one must understand the exception clauses to be one of two things: (1) an insertion by Matthew as author OR (2) an exception given by Jesus himself.
In the former, Matthew inserts an "editor's note" in the midst of a clear, long discourse of Jesus (in Matt. 5) and a clear, thorough discourse of Jesus (in Matt 19). In other words, both exception clauses need to be colored black (as Matthew's comments) in the midst of Jesus' red discourse. Hence, Matthew adds this "editor's note" to exonerate his labeling of Joseph as "just" in Matt 1. This is a highly unlikely reading, simply b/c in the midst of a long discourse by Jesus, it's difficult to discern an "editor" addition.
The latter (#2 above) is also a difficult reading b/c it would mean that Jesus includes this exception to exonerate his father thirty years earlier, as if Jesus knew that his listeners would be thinking about how Joseph divorced and was still deemed "just." This also seems highly unlikely and hardly straightforward.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home